dosw Posted August 2 Report Share Posted August 2 I have a Nagoya NA-701G, and a Nagoya NA-771G. I just wanted to point out some observations about the two. The setup: Antenna -> SMA Female to PL259 Male adapter -> Surecom SW102 -> PL259 Male to SMA Male adapter -> Baofeng UV5G The adapters don't use any cable, they're solid connectors. Methodology: Cradle hand behind the radio as I would when transmitting, select a channel, PTT and observe the SWR. I tested the NA-701G and NA-771G antennas with a Baofeng UV-5G connected directly to a Surecom SW-102, connected directly to the antenna. I also tested with a stock antenna. First test was a real world test: I drove around to a few locations within five miles of my home and tested sound quality (I was recording at home using SDR++ with an RTL-SDRv4 connected to a Comet CA2X4SR). In each of my tests, the sound quality recorded was best with the NA-771G, with the stock Baofeng antenna in 2nd place, and the NA-701G in last place of the three. I would expect the NA-771G to outperform the stock antenna, but I would not expect the stock antenna to outperform a GMRS dedicated antenna like the NA-701G. Next I tested the SWR with the Surecom meter and direct connections. I carefully held the radio as I would hold it when speaking; nearly vertical, hand cupped around the back of the radio, a few inches from my face. The SWR on the NA-701G ranged between 3.0:1 and 6.0:1. These are really awful numbers for an antenna that is advertised as <1.5:1 SWR.. Then I tested with the NA-771G, and it got a nearly perfect score of between 1.0:1 and 1.03:1. Excellent. Finally I tested with the stock Baofeng antenna. It got between 1.01:1 and 1.06:1 across all GMRS frequencies. My NA-701G and NA-771G both came in the same type of Nagoya antenna packaging. They appear to both be genuine, not knockoffs. Yet the 771G performed so well, for a handheld antenna (yes, it's quite long), and the 701G performed worse than a stock antenna. I'm not sure if perhaps I got a defective 701. It's rather hard to make a defective rubber-duck style antenna, I think, though. So this one is probably not going to get used now that I've tested its characteristics. On the positive side, it's about a quarter inch shorter than the stock antenna, and a lot more flexible. So the form factor is nice. The real silver lining is the NA-771G. Great antenna. I also tested the NA-771G on MURS, and it maintained an SWR of 1.4:1 or 1.5:1 across the MURS frequencies.= RayDiddio and WRXP381 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WRXP381 Posted August 2 Report Share Posted August 2 I’ve never done swr readings on either but I’ve always found the 701 to be A total waste of money. I run 771antennas on everything I own. They never get in the way Summer clothes, winter clothes, dirt bikes, quads, horses, trucks, tractors on foot. I won’t run anything else. For the price I don’t think they can be beat. 30 plus miles simplex happens every single day and at times up to 60miles into a repeater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WRUU653 Posted August 2 Report Share Posted August 2 On a Baofeng I find both 701 and 771 to be an improvement over the stock antennas. I use the 701's unless I need more and the 771 is an improvement over that. I like the smaller size and I'm not usally struggling to get more. That said I don't use my Baofeng's much now and I find the stock antennas on my other radios are pretty good. I did recently pick up a NA-320A tri band for my KG-Q10H and so far so good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WRUU653 Posted August 2 Report Share Posted August 2 I might add it has been said testing SWR of an HT antenna with a surecom is at best problematic. I have not bothered. I’ll let others chime in about how good the testing is. I’m one of those guys that’s happy if it works. WRHS218 and WRXR255 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WRXP381 Posted August 2 Report Share Posted August 2 6 minutes ago, WRUU653 said: I might add it has been said testing SWR of an HT antenna with a surecom is at best problematic. I have not bothered. I’ll let others chime in about how good the testing is. I’m one of those guys that’s happy if it works. Totally agree swr testing is near impossible on an ht. The best that can be gleaned is a comparison of 2 radios or antennas. I can say also that my uv9 radios with a 771g antena work better than a Motorola xts5000 with a stock antenna. Plus they are 1/2 the weight. We need our radios to get as many miles as possible to every little bit helps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosw Posted August 5 Author Report Share Posted August 5 On 8/2/2024 at 5:21 PM, WRUU653 said: On a Baofeng I find both 701 and 771 to be an improvement over the stock antennas. I use the 701's unless I need more and the 771 is an improvement over that. I like the smaller size and I'm not usally struggling to get more. That said I don't use my Baofeng's much now and I find the stock antennas on my other radios are pretty good. I did recently pick up a NA-320A tri band for my KG-Q10H and so far so good. It's possible I have a defective 701. If I touch it exactly where the whip meets the base, the SWR drops to 1.01:1. Move my finger away, and it goes back up to 6:1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveShannon Posted August 5 Report Share Posted August 5 9 minutes ago, dosw said: It's possible I have a defective 701. If I touch it exactly where the whip meets the base, the SWR drops to 1.01:1. Move my finger away, and it goes back up to 6:1 You might be able to pull the plastic shroud off to see if the capacitor has broken free from the coil internally. If so, just resolder it. WRYZ926 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WRYZ926 Posted August 5 Report Share Posted August 5 I've tested my HT antennas using a Comet antenna analyzer. The SWR was all over the place on all of the antennas. The best results was when I held the analyzer up like I was using a HT. I have not used any of the 701 antennas but have a few of the 771 antennas, Half are for GMRS and the others are dual band. I did notice a slight improvement when using the 771 antennas on my Baofeng and Explorer QRZ-1 (TYT UV88). The stock antennas did as good or better than the 771 on my Icom IC-T10 and Wouxun HT's. I am sticking with the stock rubber duck antennas on all of my HT's except for my Baofeng GT-5R since I did open it up for the 1.25m/220 MHz band. I am using a tribune antenna for that. WRUU653 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piggin Posted August 13 Report Share Posted August 13 On 8/2/2024 at 6:14 PM, dosw said: I have a Nagoya NA-701G, and a Nagoya NA-771G. I just wanted to point out some observations about the two. The setup: Antenna -> SMA Female to PL259 Male adapter -> Surecom SW102 -> PL259 Male to SMA Male adapter -> Baofeng UV5G The adapters don't use any cable, they're solid connectors. Methodology: Cradle hand behind the radio as I would when transmitting, select a channel, PTT and observe the SWR. I tested the NA-701G and NA-771G antennas with a Baofeng UV-5G connected directly to a Surecom SW-102, connected directly to the antenna. I also tested with a stock antenna. First test was a real world test: I drove around to a few locations within five miles of my home and tested sound quality (I was recording at home using SDR++ with an RTL-SDRv4 connected to a Comet CA2X4SR). In each of my tests, the sound quality recorded was best with the NA-771G, with the stock Baofeng antenna in 2nd place, and the NA-701G in last place of the three. I would expect the NA-771G to outperform the stock antenna, but I would not expect the stock antenna to outperform a GMRS dedicated antenna like the NA-701G. Next I tested the SWR with the Surecom meter and direct connections. I carefully held the radio as I would hold it when speaking; nearly vertical, hand cupped around the back of the radio, a few inches from my face. The SWR on the NA-701G ranged between 3.0:1 and 6.0:1. These are really awful numbers for an antenna that is advertised as <1.5:1 SWR.. Then I tested with the NA-771G, and it got a nearly perfect score of between 1.0:1 and 1.03:1. Excellent. Finally I tested with the stock Baofeng antenna. It got between 1.01:1 and 1.06:1 across all GMRS frequencies. My NA-701G and NA-771G both came in the same type of Nagoya antenna packaging. They appear to both be genuine, not knockoffs. Yet the 771G performed so well, for a handheld antenna (yes, it's quite long), and the 701G performed worse than a stock antenna. I'm not sure if perhaps I got a defective 701. It's rather hard to make a defective rubber-duck style antenna, I think, though. So this one is probably not going to get used now that I've tested its characteristics. On the positive side, it's about a quarter inch shorter than the stock antenna, and a lot more flexible. So the form factor is nice. The real silver lining is the NA-771G. Great antenna. I also tested the NA-771G on MURS, and it maintained an SWR of 1.4:1 or 1.5:1 across the MURS frequencies.= I used a rigexpert AA-600 and mounted the antennas directly on it. I got the same results you did. The 771G is the best rubber antenna I have ever tested. The 701 is the worst! If you get it the exact right distance to your body it works fine. For me 701 is not recommended. 771g is highly recommended. My KG-905G likes them! dosw 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.